The Road to Total Freedom A Sociological analysis of Scientology ROY WALLIS The Road to Total Freedom This book is a sociological study of a new quasi-religious movement, Scientology. Its author, Roy Wallis, traces the emergence of this movement as a lay psychotherapy - "Dianetics" and its development into an authoritarian sect. Drawing on formulations in the sociology of religion, he analyses the processes involved and presents a theory to account for the transformation of cult into sect. On the basis of over eighty interviews with members and former members, a typology of the motivations which led individuals to affiliate with the movements is derived, and the processes by which members become further committed to the movement are explored. The reasons which led a proportion of members to defect from the movement are also described. Scientology has been notable for the extent to which is has come into conflict with the state, medical agencies, and individuals critical of its practices. The author turns to the sociology of deviance to provide a model to account for the development of a 'moral crusade'against Scientology and to explain the way in which the movement reacted and adapted to a hostile environment. This study should find a place on courses in Religious Studies, the History of Religion, and the Sociology of Religion. It will be essential material for any attempt to understand the form and place of the new religions in advanced industrial societies. It is also likely to be appropriate material for courses on the Sociology of Social Movements. The controversial nature of the topic of this work may, however, endow it with a market appeal beyond the confines of the academic community. The Road to Total Freedom *A Sociological Analysis of Scientology* The Road to Total Freedom *A Sociological Analysis of Scientology* Roy Wallis NEW YORK COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESs 1977 Copyright c 1976 Roy Wallis All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Wallis, Roy. The Road to Total Freedom. Bibiography: p. Includes index. I. Scientology. I. Title. BP605.S2W34 1976 131'.35 76-27273 ISBN 0-231-04200-0 PREFACE There is a sence in which sociology is inevitably a subversive enterprise. The very act of refiecting on the behaviour of people and organizations entails that these activities do not bear their meaning and explanation on their face. The sociologist's pursuit of further or different knowledge after he has already been informed of the 'truth'of the matter by the individuals or organizations concerned, displays the fact that he does not accept the 'self- evident', and perhaps even that motivated by malice, he is prepared to tell some entirely different story. Hence, the sociologist poses a threat to the rhetorics and legitimations employed by social groups and a potential challenge to their definition of reality, and to the definitions of themselves which they present for public consumption. He therefore risks calling down upon himself the wrath and opprobrium of groups which he studies. Generally, the groups examined by sociologists are relatively powerless and their complaints may do little more than prick his own conscience or the consciences of his more radical colleagues. In other cases, however, the group examined may not be without power and in such instances, depending on the nature of the power and the society in which it is exercised, the sociologist may risk more severe if not necessarily more serious, consequences, I began my work on Scientology as a raw graduate student, fascinated by the relationship between beliefs, social organisation and society. While I had initially intended that Scientology be considered as one among a range of unorthodox system of belief to which I proposed to devote attention, I found myself increasingly interested by the rich body of material I was uncovenng on this multifaceted movement. I have recounted at length elsewhere (in my contribution 'The moral career of a research project'to Colin Bell and Howard Newby, editors, *Doing Sociological Research*, Allen and Unwin, London, 1976) the history of my research on Scientology. It remains, however, to summarize a few points salient to the final production of this book. As my opening remarks would suggest, the Church of Scientology was suspicious of my research. Having suffered at the hands of newspaper reporters, investigators for state and medical agencies, and government enquiries in many countries, my own work was readily placed by the leaders of the Church of Scientology into the category of hostile or critical commentary. My protestations that I had no axe to grind, and that I sought only to provide a coherent and vi PREFACE as-nearly-objecive account of Scientology as possible, were viewed with commendable scepticism by the church leadership. The Church of Scientology is not known for its willingness to take what it construes as criticism without recourse. Indeed its record of litigation must surely be without parallel in the modern world. It therefore seemed almost inevitable that my own final work would be the subject of lengthy and expensive litigation. In such a situation, the writer faces a dilemma. Does he 'tell the truth, and damn the consequences'? Or does he, in the light of the extreme severity of the British law of libel, reflect that in over a hundred thousand words of text, anyone can make a mistake? There is a powerful tension between the threat of censorship and the possibility of enormous cost in time, effort and money for a single error. But there is a further consideration. The sociologist has an *obligation* to the subjects of his research. Even if his relationship with them has sometimes approached open war, he owes them a duty not to misrepresent their activities and beliefs, the more so if they are in any respect a socially stigmatized or politically threatened collectivity. In my decision to make my manuscript available to the Church of Scientology, *both* of those considerations weighed heavily. Informing them in advance of what one intended to say had its dangers. Forewarned is, after all, forearmed for any legal battle. But the risk, in this case, paid off. It is my feeling that the church leadership appreciated the gesture, and while they remained adamant over a period of months that certain things should not be said, they were willing to compromise and to negotiate. These negotiations, covering several reams of typescript were salutory. I came to appreciate that things which had initially sounded innocuous to me could be read as pejorative or even invective. In due course, I made various modifications to the text in this light. As an example, I amended my argument that Hubbard was 'obsessed'with communism, to read that he was 'preoccupied'by it. I also deleted a comparison with the Nazi party and the Ss which seemed on reflection *unnecessarily* offensive to members of the Church of Scientology. I further incorporated into the text from various commentaries sent to me by the Church of Scientology, statements of their views on certain events on which we could not find common ground. As a final gesture to the Church I offered to include in the work, as an appendix, a commentary commissioned by the Church, on my work as a whole. This seemed to provide what they claimed had been denied them in the past, i.e. an adequate right of reply, for which reason they had been forced to seek recourse in the courts. Dr Jerry Simmons was commissioned by the Church to write this reply. His interesting paper 'On maintaining deviant belief systems', has often been cited by sociologists working in the field of unorthodox collectivities of believers.1 As a believer hmmself in this case, Dr Simmons inevitably rejects my study. 1 *Social Problems*, II, Winter (1964), pp. 250-6. vii PREFACE His main argument is that my methods are not adequate in that they do not fulfil the criteria of tradltional survey research, and that I theretore violate "the scientific method'. Dr Simmons fails to recognise that methods are tools and tools must be adapted to circumstances. The 'scientific method'is no more than an injunction to examine evidence dispassionately and critically. My study does not intend to be a piece of survey research. Dr Simmons'strictures are, therefore, at best, misplaced. There are no 'sampling errors' since there is no 'sample'. My respondents are ethnographic informants not randomly sampled survey respondents. That many of them were not practising Scientologists and were openly hostile to Scientology only tells us that my information *may* be biased and not that it *is*. As it happens, information secured from informants, whether devoted adherents or active opponents, could be checked against other informants or against documentary sources. Dr Simmons suggests that I was offered permission to interview over 4,000 believers for my study. This offer was not, I'm afraid, ever as clear to me as it was to Dr Simmons. He accuses me again of bias in sampling statements from documents rather than performing a content analysis, but again his argument is misplaced. Had I wished for an analysis of the content of the documents, I would have conducted a content analysis. But something said only once in a body of documentation may have as much influence on organizational and individual behaviour as something said a thousand times. Hence I utilized documentation as any historian would, seeking to locate influential statements and to cite statements which information from other sources had indicated were important for behaviour, rather than to analyse as a whole the content of documents which, in the case of Scientology as of many other organizations and social movements, are often written for public relations purposes.